Search form

Gore’s Secret Donors

A recent New York Times story brings news of Vice
President Gore’s evolving views on campaign finance regulation:
“Peter Knight, Mr. Gore’s chief fund-raiser, said some of the money
for the Gore recount fund had come from large donations by wealthy
people, but he declined to name them.”

You may recall that we had a modest debate this past summer
about the role of undisclosed contributions to so-called 527
groups. Such groups raised funds from anonymous contributors to
support issues ads during this year’s elections.

You may also recall the avalanche of attacks on such anonymous
fundraising.

The Washington Post called for complete disclosure and
suggested defenders of anonymous giving were “in love with the
dark.”

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) noted that secret contributions
were the latest source of corruption in politics, a “dangerous
invitation to scandal.”

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), sponsor of a bill to force
disclosure of 527 contributions, argued that “our political system
is being polluted with substantial amounts of secret contributions
and secret expenditures used to attack candidates.”

The editorial writers of the New York Times decried
527 groups as “shadowy tax-exempt organizations that are secretly
raising and spending unlimited sums of money to influence federal
elections.”

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) equated the secretive activities of
some 527 groups to “certain evils in our society,” including
murder, rape and robbery.

Indeed, Gore himself called for disclosure of the officers and
finances of Section 527 organizations as part of his proposal for
new regulations on campaign finance. Gore called such groups “the
equivalent of Swiss bank accounts for campaigns.” Sen. Joseph
Lieberman (D-Conn.) introduced a disclosure bill for 527 groups.
And that leading expert in political ethics, Rep. Patrick Kennedy,
affirmed, “The only issue that matters is where the money is coming
from. That’s the main public interest here.”

This hysteria — and what else to call a period when funding
issue ads is compared to murder, rape, and robbery? — led to a law
requiring disclosure of contributions by 527 groups.

At that time many across the political spectrum raised doubts
about disclosing contributions from 527 groups. They worried
whether disclosing contributions would chill freedom of speech and
association. They noted that anonymous giving protects the privacy
of the contributor, thereby precluding retribution by political
enemies. And they recalled Justice Harlan’s admonishment,
“Inviolability of privacy in group association may in many
circumstances be indispensable to preservation of freedom of
association, particularly where a group espouses dissident
beliefs.”

Gore and his contributors now seem to recognize the value of
anonymous giving, as well they might. Imagine a wealthy individual
committed to Gore and willing to support his bid for a recount.
Let’s say he learns that his contribution will be disclosed. Here
are the questions crossing his mind: If Bush wins the presidency,
will I be the target of political retribution? Will that deal with
my Republican business partners still go through? Will my name be
published in the newspaper? Clearly disclosure would have a
chilling effect.

Gore may yet disclose the contributors to his recount fund.
After all, he has enough public relations problems at the moment
without charges of hypocrisy. But advocates of campaign finance
regulation should be demanding full disclosure right now. If
anonymous giving is as much of a threat to American democracy as
they and Gore said last summer, any secret giving — especially by
wealthy individuals — should be immediately brought into the
sunlight to ward off corruption in the struggle for Florida. (Can
we look forward to a New York Times editorial demanding disclosure
of the sources of the recount fund?)

I believe Gore’s donors have a right to contribute anonymously
to his efforts in Florida. Privacy of association and protection
from retribution for political commitments are important American
values. What I can’t stomach is a double standard on the part of
campaign finance reformers who brayed about 527s but thus far have
been silent about Gore’s secret donors.